arkhir

Lock-on-after-launch would be awesome, it would allow people to launch maddogs, and (hopefully) mod-in anti-radiation variants of Mavericks and Kedges, apart from solving the bomb issue. Three birds with one stone? I feel this feature, if implemented, should be extended to missiles, not only bombs. Gripen E has MAW but it would still be nice to have possibility of disabling this feature for older aircraft, helicopters or other aircraft not equipped with these systems. I think that's related to limited capability of laser rangefinders. Russian Klen-PS laser rangefinder has 5km of total range with ±12 azimuth, -30 to +6 elevation constraints and with ranging error of ~5m.

Mostly been dogfighting, Black Wasp versus Shikra. I've been trying both mrange and srange munitions, on distances ranging from 400 to BVR. Got one kill on head-on engagement on about 3km with AMRAAM, then started turning on the wingman. Defenders dumped bursts (standard AI behaviour), but even then the flares seemed to defeat missiles in somewhat unlikely scenarios — for example, a missile was fired after a flare dump was provoked by a previous heatseeker, on a distance of about 700-900 meters. Missile flew erratically in a direction completely opposite to the flares (it has turned hard up and to the left), and was just... gone, even after the flares finished their burn. I'd expect that proper behaviour in this case would be more in-line of this: heatseeker flies towards the flare dump initially, as they attract him first. But after flying too close / through the flares - enough to lose lock and regain it on jet engines - it should hone-in on them and go in for a kill. Instead it has just... Done something weird, flying in an unprobable pattern. I guess it has something to do with core in-game flare simulation mechanics rather than anything else. But yeah, generally speaking I feel like this just needs some proper balancing, I played around with it for only about 1-2 hours, so I don't know. Sometimes though it just feels like flares are impossible to defeat, and I tried different firing disciplines: rippling, dumping a couple or firing off successively with interval. Got some good splashes, but most of the time it wasn't enough to cut it. Oh, also - whoever did the AI deserves some praise. After damaging enemy jet heavily he disengaged from a fight and headed for landing :D AA guided missile used by Cheetah. Clearly getting locked, RWR doesn't warn about the radar lock, only getting the 'incoming missile' after the missile fired. Not sure if this missile is supposed to be a heatseeker or radar-guided missile, so tried again, this time with radar-guided munition: AMRAAM with active radar homing. Same deal: no warning before the launch, only after (no radar warning reciever warning, only missile approach warning system triggers). Titan MANPAD heatseeking missile triggering approach warning system. No idea if this is supposed to happen or not; older jets are unable to detect MANPAD launches though, even if they can detect radar-guided missiles. Also I don't know what's wrong with these missiles, but none of them hit me despite not flaring or evading them and flying very slow (airbraking ) I would expect it to work something like this: 1) RWR lock-on tone. Warns pilot about being locked-on by a radar. This is not happening when enemy is locking us with radar-guided munitions, or any other systems utilizing radar lock-on (e.g. AAA ballistic computers tied to their radars). It would be nice if we had a lock-on warning for radar-guided munitions, displayed in flashing yellow/orange with some sort of tone on the RWR. 2) Missile launch warning! Something we already have! Yay. Although I'm aware in 2035 5-gen jets will most likely be able to detect MANPAD launches, I'm fairly sure that some older jets don't necessarily have MAWs. That's why I staded I don't know how intentional this feature is, and whether it should be possible to disable it for modding purposes (e.g. for SU-25T, which as far as I am aware - cannot detect heat-seeking, but can detect radar-guided munitions) or L-159 Alca, which most likely doesn't have MAWs capable of detecting MANPAD launches. With this sort of behaviour, two classes of guidance would be much more distinct than they currently are: No MAW for IR-guided missiles IR guided missiles easy to dispatch with flares RWR lock-on warning for radar-guided missiles RWR-based MAW for radar-guided missiles Radar-guided missiles harder to dispatch with chaff than IR with flares Add automatic "timed" flare release mode. Once activated, your aircraft is dumping a flare/chaff round every couple of seconds, untill activated again, to make it stop. This would essentially protect you from virtually any sort of heat-seeking missile, but wouldn't be enough to save you from a radar-guided missile fired from a close range This way we reach a couple of different results with distinct balance between them: To be reliably protected from MANPADs you need to stay high (beyond their range), or continually dump flares, or fly fast and in evasive pattern. IR-guided missiles wouldn't be as effective, if countered actively, but would be deadly and surprising if they weren't expected. To be reliably protected from radar-guided munitions you need to break your trajectory, performing evasive maneuvers and dumping a lot of chaff. Radar-guided missiles wouldn't be surprising, but would require taking a timed defensive action upon launch (like they do now) edit: It wasn't specified in the thread - so if this is off topic then please move this post and any other post I made here to respective threads (about sensors, or other feedback I've compiled)

Hey, feedback is feedback. And these changes don't necessarily require any modelling to do, some of the changes could be done config- or script-wise I think. KH-29 and Maverick models are there, but we don't get any variants (SACLOS, ARMs, etc.) I think that anti-radar missiles are a must given the new changes, but currently I don't think we even have a way of modding them in, as this type of guidance doesn't exist engine-wise :P I guess you're right about the former thing, in 2035 MAWS will be pretty common, but still it would be nice to have a possibility of disabling them somehow for modding purposes.

Really missing new weapon types. Sorta surprised we're not getting different sorts of tools that would utilize all the awesome new mechanics introduced by the DLC. A lot of potential goes to waste: anti-radiation ordnance, beam-riding semi-active missiles, cluster bombs, bomblet dispensers, or different sized unguided bombs (FAB-250, 500) for CSAT, no GPS guided munitions, not much difference in size between unguided rockets. It'd be really cool if aerial assets would be rendered as feature 2 on default. Soundscape of the DLC could be slightly improved (RWR sounds, and all that jazz; possibly other atmospheric features, sound-design wise) I think the default ArmA 3 HUD features (e.g. locking squares/diamonds, lead indication, etc.) should be disabled in jets that feature these markings on the HMD or their HUD. The FoV in new jets is not on par with ArmA standards. Anti-air defence options are very limited in vanilla game, currently we have only 2 vehicles, 1 static and 1 manpad. It's a pity AA(A) assets weren't in the scope of this DLC. Well, we did get three more assets, but they are bound to the aircraft carrier and NATO faction. PiP is too limited engine-wise to be used efficiently with targetting pods. It is good enough for missile cam though. Flares and chaff seem to be a bit too reliable in distracting missiles There is no automated "timed" flare dispensal mode Jets don't mark radiation threats on their HUD/HMDs even if they are detected by the ELINT or RWR. If this isn't introduced because it is considered "too OP" then ELINT pods should take one of the pylon rack spots. SU-25 had this years earlier Threats that are marked by the HUD and outside of its range aren't distinguished (like on the screenshot above, by a diamond with the X) - they just stick to the frame of HUD. RWR doesn't warn about radar lock-on, only about incoming missile. (not sure if intentional) Heat-seeking passive missiles are being detected on launch. While I understand this gameplay-wise, it'd be more realistic to just make them relatively easy to flare but hit without warning, unlike radar-guided munitions. This would force players to dispense flares preemptively like it is done in real life when there is a threat of MANPADS. If there was a possibility of achieving such results by re-configuring passive missiles or airplane warning recievers then it's fine I guess.

Wait, what? I couldn't find it here: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Category:Scripting_Commands_Arma_3 Is it a new command on devbranch? edit: found it! https://dev.arma3.com/post/spotrep-00064 haha, excellent It's limited to 500 and 200 objects respectively for static and dynamic though, but I doubt anyone would use more than 200 aircraft in their mission.

Yeah, that would be a great command — it would allow modders to solve the issue, and invididual mission-makers to enable this for certain aerial or naval assets (e.g. blackfish, xi'an, jets, carriers, etc.). I'm just wondering if it's feasible engine-wise at all, or is it something hardcoded and bound to map rendering. This command would be a really nice gift from BIS.

Which is sad, really. But I wouldn't worry; BIS won't rebrand ArmA into civillian life simulator :D

That's good. You definitely should get punished for flying low&slow!

Haha, yes, it most definitely does. Brought me down in a Xi-an during one of our missions when my JTAC failed to notice me I'm taking cannon fire. LOOKED like a .50 from the ground, so I shrugged it off, and oh boy was I surprised...! :D Sick. I was REALLY hoping they'll introduce belly landings when I saw the "GEAR" hitpoint. You hyped me up fam, I'm downloading Dev Branch.

Wait, WHAT?! You can now belly land without exploding in goodness gracious great balls of fire? How?! Too bad we didn't get a good old AAA without the combined missile capability for Greenbacks :D But the DLC is awesome anyways.

It works, you just need to aim with the middle of your screen, not the middle of reticle.

@reyhard Will we be able to use these S13 rockets with SU-25 as well? Nice work guys :)

Is the upcoming version of RHS going to be fully compatible with vanilla magazines?

Wow. Does it take sides into account, or does it jam all radio comms in range? If it jams everything then that would explain a lot... Hahaha. During one of our last missions we went to the other side of a bridge and I was slightly annoyed at my team leader not listening to me or going AFK without any warning, but turns out it was my DUKE all along...

thank mr reyhard I was thinking about reporting it but wanted to cross-check whether that was someone elese's fault, intended or what's up first.

A question, not a request, to change the tides a bit Is Su-25 intended to be so fragile? I swear it's 10 times easier to land her in DCS: World than in ArmA. After most landings, even the delicate ones, "hint str getDammage vehicle player" always shows values ranging from 0.02 to 0.17. Only the smoothest landings possible result in 0 damage, and it's quite tricky to get those. I get damaged even with sub 1m/s descent rates when coming in to land on full flaps and fairly delicate alpha.

[oyyy blins internally] Man, thank you. I logged in just to type that. I know you probably don't give a damn, but I was really missing older 74's in RHS. Absolutely amazing, please keep us updated with AK-74 WIPs whenever they'll appear. Can we please get an in-engine shot of that sexy AKS? :D Will there be an option to fold the stock with ctrl+C like with the rest of them?

Just wondering: are ammo cookoffs intended to be this long and violent? BMD-3 from RHS got hit with a Javelin (I guess the vehicle inherits the class from configs, hence it cookoffs like any other IFV would, correct me if I'm wrong), and the ammo was exploding and cooking off in bursts for a good couple of minutes, spewing armed shells across terrain even beyond ranges you'd typically expect (for over 200-300m). Needles to say, despite being fairly far away, we lost about three people to the rounds going off. And we weren't really bunched together; two fireteams spread over 500m. I thought it was going cease cooking off after N-th burst, but it surprised me every time, when after a brief pause, the whole procedure just started over.

Just FYI, you can find these in game, using config viewer, under CfgWeapons :)

What about AH6?

Yeah but both Mi-26 and Mi-6 can transport BMDs and BTRs so that'd be nice. For now I'm just pretending Chernarussians have got C130s if I want to make mechanized paradrop, BMDs fit in just fine.

This is really cool guys, I appreciate all the things you're working on :P

I'll just say keep doing what you love doing. Identities as one pack - yeah, sure, I don't se any harm in that.

Does this mod contain Guba and Angelina?

Does it inherit the B_ class? If so, then perhaps moving over to inheritance from .338 bullets would yield better results. It would not create Marksmen dependency as far as I know.